Baughn v. Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection, Case No. C072462 (3d Dist. Mar. 11, 2016) (Unpublished).
In this one, plaintiffs were awarded SLAPP fees by the lower court under the authority that the defense SLAPP motion was frivolous in nature under CCP § 425.16(c)(1). The problem here was that the lower court only found plaintiffs were “prevailing parties,” which alone does not satisfy the requirements that the SLAPP motion was frivolous or imposed for delay purposes. So, reversed and remanded to comply with the statutory requirements for awarding SLAPP fees against the unsuccessful defense.
Greene v. True Crime, LLC, Case Nos. B260333/B261349 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 11, 2016) (Unpublished).
Same result in this one, but in a different procedural context. In this one, a lower court awarded a cross-complainant $15,000 out of requested $38,982.989.26 in fees for beating a cross-defendant’s SLAPP motion. However, the appellate court reversed entirely in this one because cross-defendant only “struck” the attorney’s fees prayer from the cross-complaint and did not excise merits cross-claim allegations relating to cross-complainant’s breach of contract claims. Given this real lack of nexus to merit allegations, cross-defendant did not satisfy the frivolous/dilatory exception for fee qualification under the SLAPP fee shifting statute.